Quarterbacks

QB1: Cam Ward, Miami

Cam Ward is a talented quarterback prospect with the arm strength and athleticism to make plays both in and out of structure. With great size and mobility, he’s able to extend plays with his legs and be a physical runner. His quick release and impressive arm strength allow him to fire throws into tight windows, while his exceptional short-area accuracy makes him effective in quick-game concepts and RPOs. Ward consistently shows big-time playmaking ability, but there are some concerns that affect his projection. His mechanics are inconsistent, particularly his release, and his decision-making can be very shaky, with several badly forced throws on tape that resulted in interceptions. Despite these flaws, Ward’s physical tools and natural creativity make him a promising QB prospect, provided he can develop more consistency and clean up some of the decision-making issues.

Grade: Round 1

QB2: Shedeur Sanders, Colorado 

Shedeur Sanders is a quarterback who is solid across the board but lacks standout traits that would elevate him to a day 1 projection. His speed and scrambling ability are above average, though they do fall short of expectations given his pedigree as the son of a Hall of Fame cornerback. One area where Sanders shines is his ability to execute the basics. He has great accuracy, especially on short throws, and his mechanics are very good. However, outside of these strengths, there are notable concerns. Sanders lacks the arm strength to consistently drive throws into tight windows, and he struggles under pressure, often holding the ball too long and taking unnecessary sacks. His ability to extend plays is limited by average athleticism and inconsistent accuracy when throwing off-platform. Overall, Sanders projects as a low-end starter or reliable backup in the league, but it’s hard to see him developing into anything more unless the offense is specifically set up to develop him long-term.

Grade: Round 3

QB3: Jalen Milroe, Alabama

Jalen Milroe is an incredibly athletic quarterback prospect who will immediately come into the league as one of the best rushing threats at the position. His physical traits, particularly his elite speed, give him outstanding potential as a dual-threat quarterback. However, his passing ability brings some major concerns. While his arm strength is solid, his overall consistency as a passer leaves much to be desired. His accuracy, both short and long, is very average, and he often struggles to read defensive coverages. Milroe’s ball security is also a notable issue, as he tends to hold the ball too long and makes questionable decisions under pressure. His running ability and athleticism could fit well in a system built around play action or RPOs, but until he develops as a pocket passer, his passing limitations will prevent him from being a starter. Milroe projects as a developmental prospect with elite rushing prowess, but he will need to improve his processing as a passer to reach his full potential in the league.

Grade: Round 3

QB4: Dillon Gabriel, Oregon

Dillon Gabriel is an efficient game manager type quarterback, but his lack of arm strength and undersized frame will limit his ceiling at the next level. Gabriel showcases excellent mental awareness and is great at reading defenses, making him a consistent passer. Gabriel’s accuracy is reliable, and he excels at protecting the ball, rarely forcing throws. Additionally, he is a great rushing threat, offering upside as a dual-threat quarterback. However, his arm strength is a significant concern, as he tends to loft throws rather than drive them with velocity. His release is slow, and he lacks the necessary zip to challenge defenders in tight windows. Gabriel's below-average size also raises durability concerns, and his accuracy dips when making throws outside the pocket. His speed, processing, and ability to command an offense are promising traits, but Gabriel's inability to drive the ball with velocity, combined with his size limitations, will likely cap his ceiling as a spot-starter or backup.

Grade: Round 3

QB5: Will Howard, Ohio State

Will Howard is an experienced quarterback with good size and functional mobility. He’s accurate in the short game, comfortable operating within structure, and capable of making throws on the move. His athleticism allows him to extend plays when needed, but his overall upside is limited by several key flaws. Howard struggles with ball security and often forces unnecessary throws, which result in many preventable interceptions. His deep accuracy is very inconsistent, and he lacks the arm strength to consistently drive the ball downfield. His processing is average, and while he can run an offense effectively, he doesn’t bring many standout traits to the table. Overall, Howard profiles as a mobile pocket passer with some developmental appeal, but his film suggests he’s best suited as a backup or short-term starter at the next level.

Grade: Round 4

QB6: Kurtis Rourke, Indiana

Kurtis Rourke is the prototypical backup quarterback who is decent in numerous areas but elite in none. Rourke is well-rounded with excellent size and a steady command of the offense, but he lacks the high-end traits needed to make him more than a backup at the next level. He’s generally accurate in the short game and shows decent poise in the pocket. His quick release helps him stay on schedule with ball placement and route timing, and he does a good job protecting the football. However, Rourke’s limitations are evident—his deep accuracy is inconsistent, his arm strength is average, and he offers next to nothing as a playmaker when forced off-script. His limited speed further caps his upside. While capable of managing a system, Rourke’s physical tools and lack of high-end traits make him best suited for a backup role in the NFL. 

Grade: Round 5

QB7: Tyler Shough

Tyler Shough is a big-bodied quarterback with a strong arm and decent mechanics, but his inconsistent decision-making and limited mobility raise concerns about his NFL projection. He flashes the ability to drive the ball downfield and occasionally make throws on the move, but he hesitates too often, missing open windows and showing shaky pocket presence. His short-area accuracy is dependable, but his deep ball placement is hit or miss, and he struggles to process defenses quickly under pressure. Shough’s athleticism and scrambling ability are below average, and his ball security is a serious issue—not just in terms of fumbles, but in occasional lapses of extreme carelessness. These moments go beyond typical turnover concerns and speak to a broader lack of awareness. While his size and arm strength give him some developmental intrigue, he needs major improvement in decisiveness, field vision, and consistency. Multiple injuries throughout his college career also add durability red flags, further complicating his long-term outlook.

Grade: Round 5

QB8: Jaxson Dart, Ole Miss

Jaxson Dart is a physically gifted quarterback with solid athletic tools but an incredibly inconsistent overall game. He has good size, mobility, and the ability to extend plays both inside and outside the pocket. Dart flashes the ability to make throws on the move, but his accuracy—both short and deep—is unreliable. His mechanics and release are concerning, often resulting in errant throws and missed opportunities. Dart also struggles with ball security and often fails to process defensive coverages, leading to many very questionable decisions on film. The arm strength is decent, but he often loses power on his throws due to bad mechanics. He also didn’t run a pro-style offense at Ole Miss, and I question if he'll be able to develop into someone capable of leading an NFL offense. While his natural tools offer developmental upside, the quarterback position requires the ability to manage an offense and process the field effectively. Dart will need significant refinement in mechanics, decision-making, and consistency to become a viable NFL quarterback.

Grade: Round 5

QB9: Quinn Ewers, Texas

Quinn Ewers looks the part of an NFL quarterback with solid size, clean footwork, and a quick release, but his on-field performance often falls short of expectations. Ewers flashes moments of good arm talent and is comfortable throwing on the move, but inconsistency plagues his game. Ewers struggles with decision-making and frequently has passes deflected at the line of scrimmage due to a low release point and lack of anticipation. While his short-area accuracy is solid, his deep ball placement varies greatly, and he often fails to process defensive coverages. He offers little as a runner, and his ball security is a major concern. Despite his natural throwing ability and polish, Ewers has yet to put it all together on tape and currently projects as a developmental depth quarterback with more questions than answers.

Grade: Round 5

QB10: Kyle McCord, Syracuse

Kyle McCord is an accurate quarterback with good size, but his game is marked by inconsistency and risky decision-making. He shows solid accuracy on tape, both short and long, with good mechanics and a quick release. However, McCord struggles under pressure and tends to force throws into tight coverage, leading to many unnecessary interceptions. His mental awareness and ball security are major concerns, as he's prone to turnovers and high-risk throws. While McCord’s natural accuracy and confidence when playing at his best are promising, his tendency for questionable decisions and a lack of poise under pressure are significant issues. With further development in consistency and a reduction in turnover-worthy plays, McCord could become a serviceable backup. However, the risk of a turnover-prone backup makes him a gamble I wouldn't personally take.

Grade: Round 5